speaking of Nou T'an, probably because his memory failed him when he subsequently wrote his narrative.

Further, the Shamans who started with him from Ch'ang-an were Hui-ching, Tao-chêng, Hui-ying, and Hui-wei; and those whom he met at Chang-yeh were Chih-yen, Hui-chien, Sêngshao, Pao-yün, and Sêng-ching, making nine in all. When they arrived at the land of Karashahr, Chih-yen, Hui-chien, and Hui-wei, went back towards Turfan; and when the others reached the Wang-hsin Monastery in Khotan, Sêng-shao left them and went on to Kapanî (Kâshmir). Then again at Peshâwur, Hui-ta, with Pao-yün and Sêng-ching, turned back to China, and Hui-ching died at the monastery of Buddha's alms-bowl; so that the individuals meant in the passage "Fa-hsien and the others, three in all, went south and crossed the lesser Snowy Mountains," must be Tao-chêng and Hui-ying. How then do we find again, "Huiching was unable to go on"? The collection of Ecclesiastical Biographies of the Liang dynasty, founded by Hsiao Yen (A.D. 502), also gives Hui-ching, which should be Hui-ying—a mistake which has been made ever since the division between North and South. Tao-chêng remained finally in India; but Hui-ta's name does not occur among the nine. Was he then "travelling with them by a different road"?

Done at Wu-yüan, by Hu Chên-hêng.

FROM

THE DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE OF THE IMPERIAL LIBRARY, PUBLISHED 1795

"HE Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms, in a single part, was composed by Shih Fa-hsien of the Liu Sung dynasty. Tu Yu in his T'ung tien quotes this work but makes the author Fa-ming. He did so because the character hsien had been appropriated by the Emperor Chung Tsung (and was therefore taboo), and men of the T'ang dynasty had substituted ming. For this reason there occur in the original commentary the four words "changed because Imperially appropriated."

Fa-hsien started from Ch'ang-an and travelled to India, passing through more than thirty countries, and returning during the I-hsi period of the Chin dynasty (A.D. 405–419). On arriving at the capital, he and an Indian priest of the Meditative School put this book together between them. Hu Chên-hêng had it cut on blocks and entered in his private catalogue, naming it on the cover by its old title-Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms. Yet in his note at the end he says that it ought to be called The Narrative of Fa-hsien.

Now in Li Tao-yüan's commentary on the Water Classic where he quotes "Keeping to the range, the party journeyed for fifteen days in a south-westerly direction," and so on, eighty-nine words in all; and where he quotes "On the upper Ganges there was a king," and so on, two hundred and seventy-six words in all-in both cases he speaks of The Narrative of Fa-hsien. Chên-hêng's statement is therefore not without authority.

In The Miscellaneous Records of the Sui Dynasty there is an entry of The Narrative of Fa-hsien in two rolls, and of The Itinerary of Fa-hsien in one part, the authors' names not being given; and in The Geographical Section is mentioned The Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms in one roll, with a note saying that it was composed by the Shaman, Shih Fa-hsien. Thus we have two distinct entries in one work and three separate names, so that it is not necessary to change the title to The Narrative of Fa-hsien.

In this book we find India regarded as the Middle Kingdom, and China as a frontier country. This is because the ecclesiastics wish to do honour to their religion and is a braggart fiction which is not worth discussing.

Again, Yü-t'ien or Ho-t'ien (Khotan), as it is now called, has been from time immemorial devoted to Mahometanism, as is amply borne out by Illustrated Notices of Western Countries,

printed by Imperial authority. Yet Fa-hsien informs us that there were there fourteen Buddhist monasteries and several tens of thousands of priests, a statement which we need not accept as literally true. Nevertheless, the old Buddhistic records have stood the test of time; and as they are written in an antique and elegant style, unequalled by later writers of travel, there is no reason why they should not be preserved to extend the stock of information on marvellous subjects.

In Fa-hsien's work we have "the third year of the Hung-shih period, being the cyclical year chi hai." In the history of the Chin dynasty, under Yao Ch'ang, the second year of Hungshih corresponds with the fourth year of Lung-an (A.D. 400), and should be the cyclical year kêng tzů. Fa-hsien's record is therefore one year wrong. On the other hand, the history of the Chin dynasty, speaking of Chao Shih-hu, says that the sixth year of Chien-wu corresponds with the fifth year of Hsien-k'ang (339), the cyclical characters being chi hai; but it is stated in the Metal and Stone Inscriptions that on the mortuary tablets of Chao Hêng-shan and Li Chün, as well as in the ancestral hall of Hsi-mên Pao, the sixth year of Chien-wu is made to correspond with the cyclical year kêng tzu. This is another mistake of a year. The reason is that at the above period various States were separated from and contending with one another,

and that the style of the reign was recklessly changed, sometimes annually, sometimes even oftener, without any fixed rule. Further, the North and South being divided, and events being reported in various ways, it is difficult to decide that history must necessarily be right and Fa-hsien wrong.

In the present edition, the original text is given word for word, in order to carry out the (Confucian) precept about "putting aside points of which we are in doubt."